Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

While it was perhaps mundane to bring up the "Mongols reach Rhine" talks which is ASB by nature, I felt the need to warn everyone here about the mistake of assuming either a reason for a united front, most likely a direct threat to everyone, where there isn't. People just do that too much too often, and I'm not doing this thread half-heartedly.

But perhaps this time I'm might be a quite bit too wholehearted , but this conversation is just beyond awesome you guys should be informed about :

Spoiler for Title : Ancient Gunpowder:

Teledildonicist
I was reading up on the casting process for the Athlit Ram a few months back, and an idea which sprung into my mind then filtered up through the teledildonics research that usually clogs my brain. A culture that can cast the Athlit Ram can cast a bronze cannon.

This has been hashed and hashed and hashed elsewhere, but beyond "oh it would be interesting" I don't know that it's really been developed or interpreted at all. Would the effects of an early introduction of gunpowder to the Near East be?

Now, it is some time between some idiot blowing off a few of his fingers to bronze bombards, but let's give as a brief outline the following:

Given that gunpowder appears to have been introduced during an era of scientific "mysticism" in Taoist China, with magical manipulations of ingredients, let's find a corresponding location (time and place) for the birthplace of ancient gunpowder. The Assyrian Empire had battlefield medics and specialized veterinarians accompanying its armies of conquest, but with its destruction rational medicine in the Near East faded away and the Babylonian-Persian mystic traditions manifest in the Magi came to prominence.

Let's have the first experiments with gunpowder come in Mesopotamia at the dawn of the Persian Empire, conducted by a handful of learned/dumbass-with-missing-fingers Babylonians. This is a pretty good location because all the ingredients we need are hanging around in the vicinity of Mesopotamia.

The first reference to gunpowder comes from a note in a Chinese reference material that states that if you fool around with saltpeter and attempt to use it as an elixir for eternal life, you're liable to blow your face off. This comes in 800 AD, so let's have the first sniggering cuneiform reference to "fire drug" come in 500 BC.

Firecrackers came soon after. But while firecrackers are entertaining, we want to walk forward to guns as fast as we can. So aside from some interesting references in Herodotus and Xenophon to Persian firecrackers, we want to find when gunpowder gets militarized. The first handbook using gunpowder as an incendiary device thrown by siege engines comes in 1050 AD. Tracing along our parallel history, it seems that the likely first use of gunpowder in a military setting is as a type of ammunition stocked in the Seleucid fortresses of Mesopotamia, or perhaps used in one of the last wars of the Diadochi.

[Butterflies wander in now. What do elephants think of gunpowder? Is a small, weak butterfly enough to recreate Alexander's empire? I think not, and will move forward for a little longer under that assumption.]

Within a hundred years after the 1050 handbook, a crisis in China (the threat of a fearsome barbarian opponent, the Jurchens) provoked the full-scale use of gunpowder as a weapon. Thousands of gunpowder-arrows were stocked in Chinese fortresses, gunpowder bombs of 4-5 pounds were lobbed from fortresses, etc. Continuing with our corresponding issues about serious threats, the Romans probably get their first taste of gunpowder in their first round of wars against Alexander's successors (Second Macedonian War, Syrian War).

* * *

We've now hit a point where butterflies may be impossible to ignore. Needless to say, though, Europeans were using cannon 200 years later from the technological point that we're at. And yet the Roman impulse to drive under military doodahs (elephants, scythed chariots, etc) seems like it could kill gunpowder in the West. But what of the Parthians? Any thoughts?

EDIT : Gut thoughts after dwelling on this for a few minutes:

-Hellenistic tercios are just about there, and are really kinda cool, but I think that we don't get that rapid development in time.

-The Marian reforms moving to a tercio-based army are also kinda cool, but even less likely to me.

-The Romans of the Late Republic and Early Empire and the Parthians both have a more mobile military strategy that doesn't seem like it has an opening for the further development of gunpowder weapons. Perhaps development stagnates for several hundred years until we find a civilization that has a more static type of military perspective.

-The Late Empire seems a good place for defensive gunpowder uses, but I'm not sure I see muskets.

Jobless Ginger
I can see two bits of Roman warfare where gunpowder could be integrated without much of a change to the overall tactics, though I cannot speak as to the practicality of either suggestion. First, the more tenuous, add a small explosive charge your pilum before chucking it at the enemy. It would help disorient them. Second, much easier: siege warfare. Whether mining or lobbing detritus at the enemy, one is in a fairly static position, which you suggest as a handy thing to have.

Flatulist
Explosive pila? Surely moving from that to straighforward grenades would be a simple, logical step. The pila would have to be lit beforehand anyways, right, so moving from having to fumble around to light the end of the pilum and then chucking it, to lighting and throwing a ball easily held in one's hand, sounds like a good idea.

Teledildonicist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobless Ginger

I can see two bits of Roman warfare where gunpowder could be integrated without much of a change to the overall tactics, though I cannot speak as to the practicality of either suggestion. First, the more tenuous, add a small explosive charge your pilum before chucking it at the enemy. It would help disorient them. Second, much easier: siege warfare. Whether mining or lobbing detritus at the enemy, one is in a fairly static position, which you suggest as a handy thing to have.

The first seems pretty gimmicky, and if the Roman Republic was anything, it was not gimmicky. It does seem disorienting, but while having some auxiliary troops tossing those around seems very true to form, it doesn't seem like we'll get Roman musketmen that way, or a move from gunpowder as an ancillary part of warfare to a key part.

As for the part of siege warfare, I fully agree. Like the Mongols in OTL, I would not be surprised at all to see the Romans use gunpowder for siege purposes. I am morbidly intrigued by the thought of Titus' legions shelling the Temple Mount.

The reason why I think static warfare is important is because it was so in the European experience. The Mongols, who must be considered the reason for gunpowder's rapid spread, were a fairly mobile army with a "way" of doing things that gunpowder didn't change, until it was time to besiege somebody. While the entertaining part of the exercise to my mind (at first!) was the possibility of Roman musketfire, perhaps it is a more worthy and fascinating thought to think of adding another ability to the Romans' repertoire of siegecraft, and watching where that leads historically.

(Difficult to think of Roman peasant-armies anyway, at least until the Late Empire. Indeed, I wonder if my Western-centric thoughts are leading my away from the real change; the thought of Ashoka et alia playing the part of Mughals a millenia or two earlier!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flatulist

Explosive pila? Surely moving from that to straighforward grenades would be a simple, logical step. The pila would have to be lit beforehand anyways, right, so moving from having to fumble around to light the end of the pilum and then chucking it, to lighting and throwing a ball easily held in one's hand, sounds like a good idea.

The grenadiers-as-auxilia concept seems quite logical to me too.

Flatulist
In the later period, would the use of bombards help retard unsanctioned migration into and through the Empire? Access to well-equipped workshops and skilled craftsmen would be an essential part of maintaining a gunpowder arsenal. Such necessities are fairly static, though, so I'd imagine it'd be easier to Romans to look after cannon in their forts than it would be for Vandals to lug and maintain artillery while crossing the Rhine and pillaging Aquitania.

Teledildonicist
I agree. The question to me is whether 400 AD in Western Europe looks like the Vandals running up against a Late Roman defense-in-depth that is more akin to the Italian cities in the Renaissance (and therefore failing to just sack any city that doesn't agree it would be a great idea for the Vandals to be their new overlords) or whether it looks like OTL except the Romans have a few more flash-bangs that don't really change the fundamental nature of the end of the Roman civilization. I wonder whether the Romans, if confronted with things of the flash-bang variety 600 years prior, have the interest and the will to build up that gunpowder-infrastructure and to maintain it rather than to experience gunpowder as another elephant; an irritating opponent from way back when, but surely no match for Roman Arms (tm).

Jobless Ginger
I agree it's a bit gimmicky* and that grenades makes more sense. Lots of lovely little clay shards all over the show. That should annoy archaeologists!

* I have a feeling it's been floating about in my head for a while.

THE THING
Tudor Parfitt, in his latest book, talks about the evidence for gunpowder in ancient Egypt (not terribly convincing, in my opinion, but a starting point). He argues that the Ark of the Covenant was a kind of primitive gunpowder weapon.

Was the bronze that they manufactured sufficiently strong and flawless NOT to explode in their faces?

12th Imam
I'm curious about that one too. (With just what kind of metals are the ancient Babylonians, Greeks and Romans working?)

Back to the original point, just when would gunpowder become widespread used in warfare? By the time of the Greco-Persian Wars? By the time of Alexander the Great? So far we seem to be assuming there wouldn't be changes until late in the history of the Roman Empire, which leaves me wondering, once again, how long it actually takes for gunpowder to be massively used in war and how useful it would actually be.

Given the technological level of the ancient world, what are the weapons most likely to be developed? People here have said no to muskets but yes to grenades and maybe cannon. How about rockets like the ones developed by Britain and Mysore? (and similarly, in Korea and China)

Teledildonicist

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE THING

Tudor Parfitt, in his latest book, talks about the evidence for gunpowder in ancient Egypt (not terribly convincing, in my opinion, but a starting point). He argues that the Ark of the Covenant was a kind of primitive gunpowder weapon.

Was the bronze that they manufactured sufficiently strong and flawless NOT to explode in their faces?

For starters, "bronze cannon" is what I got to by sipping ahead with dreams of enormous, high-quality bombards (the great bombards that tore down the Land Walls were great big bronze devices, as were the culverins that crossed the Alps in the train of the Valois invasions of Italy). Bronze shatters more easily than cast iron (which is where everyone starts with their early cannons, both in medieval Europe and China) and it's a pain to produce properly, but it doesn't corrode like iron does and can be recast once the bore is worn down. I was thinking of bronze cannon more as a marker for gunpowder maturity, as it's the point when people are willing to pay three times as much for a nicer, longer-lasting weapon.

The fire-pots and other primitive bombards that everyone starts with are made of cast iron, which was produced (accidentally) by the ancient peoples of this timeframe. It is a marker of metallurgy that everyone finds cast iron pointless until gunpowder comes along, which is why it was used in medieval Europe and China, but appears to have been never more than a worthless curiosity in ancient times.

Regarding Mav's question, everybody is working with bronze, but the Athlit ram is a pretty good example of what top-end casting for military purposes can get you at 200 BC: over 500 kg mass, and evidence in favor of the ability to (if gunpowder were floating around):

-Produce the earliest hand cannons with ease (mass production): 1-2 kgs in mass, equivalent to second half of 14th century (though you'd want to be making these more cheaply out of iron)

-Produce the pot-de-fer, a 400 kg bronze-cast fire-pot that shows up in the mid-14th century, at the start of the Hundred Years' War

Of course, it is interesting to note that within 150 years of the last, the cannon foundries of the Teutonic Knights were casting 3+ metric ton cannons, and the bombards that the Ottomans used at Constantinople are simply absurd. If there's a need, it will happen.

Gentleman
This is one of those ideas that comes up a lot, but never seems to be done really well. I'd be sure to follow this timeline were you to ever make it.

A couple of thoughts. First off, you mentioned that your initial POD would be in 500 BC. Seeing as what was to become the Roman Empire was at this point barely existent, there's a real possibility that the Roman's rise to power could be butterflied away. While Roman arquebusiers and tercios are a neat concept, you've got a lot that could trip up the Romans before they become even a regional force. Then again, I'm a bit of a butterfly Nazi and I don't think anyone would mind if you stuck a butterfly net around Mesopotamia, much like Jared did in LoRaG.

On the topic of bombards and the like, I would suspect that arsenical bronze would produce fairly sturdy weapons. On the other hand, that's a lot of cannonsmiths that'll be dying before their time. The price of progress, I suppose.

Of course it'll take a while for some bright spark to realize that this finger-mauling powder has real potential, but it'll happen sooner or later. And once it happens, things will go from there - like you mentioned, it only took two hundred years for the primitive, unreliable death traps that were early bombards and handcannons to turn into monsters like this.

THE THING
Thinking more about it, the Assyrians weren't nearly as rational as you might think; their medical texts are full of mystical rubbish, such as melting wax figurines or seeking treatment in omina (although, to be fair, the did seem to have surprisingly rational ideas about contagion and quarantine that wouldn't resurface for some time later in the West). The Egyptians had a much more rationalistic approach to medicine and particularly surgery (I posted a slide show about this on my Academia.edu profile that somehow made me one of the top hits for "Babylonian perfume").

The Abbasids had access to some incendiary technology, such as fireproof suits (possibly woven fom asbestos) and naphtha bombs. These almost certainly originated in the earlier Mesopotamian civilizations, which had built an entire economy around exporting bitumen. Jahiz claims they had weaponized petroleum by the 6th c. I wouldn't be surprised if the Parthians had access to some of this knowledge long prior to that. I realize that this is separate from the question of gunpowder, but if they were experimenting with incendiaries (and possibly with galvanic cells, even if this isn't terribly likely), gunpowder isn't too far off the mark.

Here's another question: to what extent would gunpowder be preserved as "state secret" of sorts, much like Greek Fire, or at least its delivery mechanism?

Teledildonicist

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE THING

Thinking more about it, the Assyrians weren't nearly as rational as you might think; their medical texts are full of mystical rubbish, such as melting wax figurines or seeking treatment in omina (although, to be fair, the did seem to have surprisingly rational ideas about contagion and quarantine that wouldn't resurface for some time later in the West). The Egyptians had a much more rationalistic approach to medicine and particularly surgery (I posted a slide show about this on my Academia.edu profile that somehow made me one of the top hits for "Babylonian perfume").

The Abbasids had access to some incendiary technology, such as fireproof suits (possibly woven fom asbestos) and naphtha bombs. These almost certainly originated in the earlier Mesopotamian civilizations, which had built an entire economy around exporting bitumen. Jahiz claims they had weaponized petroleum by the 6th c. I wouldn't be surprised if the Parthians had access to some of this knowledge long prior to that. I realize that this is separate from the question of gunpowder, but if they were experimenting with incendiaries (and possibly with galvanic cells, even if this isn't terribly likely), gunpowder isn't too far off the mark.

Here's another question: to what extent would gunpowder be preserved as "state secret" of sorts, much like Greek Fire, or at least its delivery mechanism?

I was working from notes I jotted on this earlier, and after the most preliminary of checkups, you're correct about the Assyrians, especially the Assyrians of the later Empire (the ones that seem to get all the historical attention). Perhaps it was the Assyrians that had magic-ed up the earlier work of the Babylonians? The initial point of selecting the 7th-5th centuries BC as a start was that it was an era where there was greater interest in secret potions and elixirs, which seems very ridiculous by our viewpoint (but here goes a derail) but which, in the example of China, led to experimentation and discovery and is an interesting new perspective for me of how scientific discovery works/worked. But back to the point...

The Mesopotation bitumen production (mining? or perhaps fishing would be more appropriate?) is one of the things that planted the seed for me of locating an alternate start to gunpowder there in the first place. I remember reading about it at some point during my junior year in college...so, 2008? That incendiary connection and the Babylon Battery and other doodahs that have been found there make me think that here is where a most likely birthplace for early gunpowder would be located.

To get more precise, we need our Magi experimenters to get their hands on potassium nitrate, sulfur, and carbon. The sulfur is taken care of by the bitumen mentioned above, readily accessible throughout Mesopotamia, and carbon is easiest of all. The remaining ingredient, saltpeter (and even "black saltpeter") seem to date in Sumerian writings to the beginning of the second millenium BC. The ingredients are there, we just need someone to mess around with them!

As to your question, the answer seems to be (per China's history) that it's not so much a state secret, as much as it is that if you really want to get significant benefits out of it, it requires a powerful state actor to make progress towards this end. If I were to draw an outline up for this, I would have Alexander the Great's army come face to face with a few shrieking rockets hastily thrown together at Gaugamela, but have them dismissed as curiosities at the time. The knowledge would be out there, however, and depending on how you want to swing it, you could well have one of the Successors (the Seleucids? Demetrius against Rhodes?) using it to mildly noteworthy effect against another Successor or in a hiccup with the Romans. After all, it's pretty straightforward once the recipe is out there, as the dissemination throughout Medieval Europe shows; the question is finding someone with the means and the desire to make it happen.

Final note: "Babylonian perfume" sounds like an amusing euphemism for alt-gunpowder.

Shahanshah
Considering how fire was treated in traditional Magi scriptures, and indeed, in the viewing of much of the near east, I could very well see gunpowder starting out as a temple novelty. The Persian kings were always amiable to the Babylonian Priesthood, who generally supported them, so perhaps Darius or Xerxes is given a demonstration of this 'majestic art of fire and smoke' and is enthralled, taking the recipe back with them to Susa and perhaps showing it to the Magi. I think weaponization would come a bit later, and this is a crucial period since you need the right balance of luck and innovation to make sure that gunpowder becomes more than a pretty novelty.

The problem thus becomes how one induces an interest to make rockets and the like. There doesn't seem to be much precedence for it- in East Asia there was hundreds of years of development of Fire arrows and gunpowder devices before the Hwacha, the penultimate medieval rocket launcher, came about. In addition, gunpowder would have trouble showing its role in a cannon, since siege engines had just been developed. Metallurgy is a lot less advanced, though as evidenced by the ram not entirely inadequate to the task, and again there needs to be some impetus for it. Once you have a state ruler behind that can see some potential, perhaps watching an accidental gunpowder explosion that does some noticeable damage to a temple or kills a few people quite spectacularly, it can gain a lot of ground. I think it would be treated with some contempt, though, since it could be seen as a pet project without much demonstrable effectiveness against the enemy. The morale factor, however, is quite potent. Nothing quite scares away horse nomads like a large explosion.

12th Imam
So one way for Babylonian Perfume to go from Temple Gimmick to Weapon could be to have it used in panic against Alexander the Great? I guess that would make sense, taking Doug's example about how the Chinese resorted to it to fight off the Jurchen invasions.

Then it would presumably become what elephants were in the ancient world, especially in Seleucus' empire, although it could also spread to the other successor kingdoms.

Shahanshah
I've thought about it a bit, and have drawn up a bit of an outline of what happened. Brought to Persia from Babylon in the reign of Darius, they could be taken and the ingredients distributed to the various fire temple of Fars. Afterwards, the recipe could be slowly adapted and made more efficient (one of the early struggles of gunpowder was finding out what the right concentration of each ingredient was in order to get optimum boom). One of the Shahanshahs, perhaps Artaxerxes II, worried about what would happen against Cyrus the Younger, attempts to take these fire crackers and launch them at the enemy, either via slings, hand, or onager. I can't see rockets being developed since they seemed to be a bit of a jump that was realized later in China. The main trouble would be the propulsion system, since until this point they haven't figured out much more than 'light it and it explodes'.

Perhaps at Cunaxa these firecrackers make a bit of a lightshow but don't do much. Artaxerxes, however, in order to gain legitimacy and prestige, claims that a firecracker that he threw killed Cyrus, and attributing his victory to Ahia Mazda, and the Magi of the fire. Now, this is an important terminus in the history of Babylonian perfume or sacred fire or what have you, since it would represent the concept of it as a weapon. In the following years, it could be used as a flashy sign of the Shah, perhaps even used to herald his arrival at the battlefield. I think that by the time of Guagamela small pots full of clay shards and gunpowder are feasible, and could be taken by Alexander to India. From there, I'm not sure.

I'm now regreting my ignorance on everything ancient period oTL||||

I don't know much about Bronze weaponry other then it was rarer and weaker then iron. Then again, arguably more interesting then Bronze cannon would be the possibility of more variable application of gunpowder in warfare besides cannonery since cannons will be rare (but long-lasting) here. Anti-cavalry portable rocket propellers are just fucking awesome, but also it can cause further consequence of battle formation evolution down the line, if not warfare as whole (and eventually that'll be the case)

Gunpowder is that kind of invention that is perhaps the closest thing to "not bound by time". All it takes are simply the right ingredients happening to mix in an experiment, or just a spot, that then explodes in your face. And pretty much the only way to find it is through an accident like that. It is quite safe be sure that before it finally sticked into Chinese records, it had been encountered by the Chinese at least several times, but its accidental nature should've tended to discourage people away. And it's also safe to ponder that other places had also experienced the encounter as well.

Btw speaking about gunpowder let's skip a bit to a period where muskets are starting to be used regularly. As I understand it, it took quite a long time for military tactics to develop volley fire by rank to maintain relatively constant barrage. It took even longer time for the light infantry doctrine to take root. Though, I only knew about this by playing Total War

Does anyone know the details about the evolution of musket warfare such as this? Is there any other possible route the musket warfare evolution could take?

As far as I know, carried firearm was an evolution from cannon. Hand guns are basically portable cannons. IOTL, it looks like that the level of iron casting necessary for cannons had already been reached quite a while in the western hemisphere before gunpowder weaponry started being used, but it was regarded of little use prior. Only through briefly heightened exchange with the east facilitated by Mongol expansion did gunpowder actually spread westward. Evolution of gunpowder warfare that we are now familiar with began with that starting point, developed within the frame of western(as in, Europe and Middle East) political realities.

The role of Ottoman Empire was rather crucial here, being the first state ever to employ mass gunpowder warfare. They pretty much singlehandedly accelerated the process of gunpowder warfare evolution through their efficient autocratic-motored military expansion in their heydays which forced everyone around them to emulate.

Evolution of military technology depends unconditionally to the corresponding geopolitical realities. Change a bit of the later and you'll get a quite different kind of the former. Absence of Mongol factor will make western military evolve differently from OTL, and not necessarily for the better or worse, though in this context of gunpowder warfare it seems tempting to assume for slower pace in general.

That's true about the "firearm=small cannon" thing. The first "rifles" were longer than a man is tall and had to be carried by two men. I think they first appeared in the 1500s. In China, the first firearms were essentially short-ranged harpoons, so things were slightly different there.

Quoted this from a friend in facebook. I think it's an excellent thought meal for us all :

Quote:

I think one of the biggest failures of OTL historiography is the attempt to shoehorn the peculiar pattern of Western Europe into a global one, and as such attempting to ham-handedly force patterns of history that may actually be Sui Generis into a European model. East Asia is to me the most obvious example of where this analysis would actually fail quite solidly as far as any evidence-based aspect to historical analysis.

In East Asia China is simultaneously an imperial overlord, cultural originator/culture source, and a civilization that evolved and changed dramatically in its own right, with its changes likewise drastically affecting its neighbors. From a European POV, China had far earlier than Europe most of the ingredients of modern science, including a rationalistic apatheistic view of natural causes, the absence of a prevailing orthodoxy to limit scientific inquiry, a technological focus, but China has its own set of historical issues to confront. First among them the major weakness of the Imperial system in the form of the eunuch and harem problems, which repeatedly destabilized the imperial system from within. Second, poor geography where the tribal confederacies to the north were concerned, meaning a pattern of repeated conquest by said same Confederacies, which whether they assimilated or not was a devastating experience at the time. Third and finally, China had the issues that its imperial-dynastic structure, while suited to expand, had no rivals equivalent to itself, creating the long term issue that is most relevant to issues of Chinese 'stagnation'.

But because China was both so large and an innovator relative to its neighbors, Chinese influence in China's vincinity was extremely pervasive. Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and even Indonesia all adopted heavy influence from Chinese culture, albeit Confucian ideology limits the degree in official sources to which the reality of independence and independent systems of government/cultural history could be acknowledged.

Indochina, as the name indicates, and Indonesia became overlaid by both Indian and Islamic influences, creating a hybrid of East Asian, Hindu, and Muslim cultures that makes this region the most distinctive aspect of East Asia, though in Indonesia and in the Malyasia region Chinese influence was all out of proportion to Chinese numbers. In the case of the Indochinese societies, any strong Chinese dynasty worth its salt tried conquering them with various degrees of success.

In the cases of Korea and Japan, the power of both systems fluctuated and both adapted very different elements of Confucianism. Choson built a Korean system that was powerful but intact and inwardly focused, albeit in the long term helping Korea into the problems that enabled the conquest of the Japanese. Choson did this, however, on the basis of a longer-term cultural/civilizational history where the unenviable geographic location between China and Japan was a continual problem.

In Japan's case alone among the countries in question, the dynasty never (officially) fell, but it still degenerated in the vein of Confucian thinking. This is where the Bafuku/Shogunates stepped in, adopting the concept of autocracy and dynamism in a new form, meaning Japanese politics, while still seeing the occasional Imperial resurgence instead had a Shogunate dynastic cycle instead of a monarchical one.

For all of East Asia, thus, the 19th Century becomes a turning point, but it's one in different ways. China meets the concept of nationalism, and as like all these states it's de facto multi-ethnic and in practice run by a dynasty of another nationality, it starts having nationalistic issues where Chinese nationalism is strongly opposed to the dynastic structure, this ultimately combining with civil war and defeat in foreign wars to topple the dynasties. In Japan the collapse of the Tokugawa system sees the rise of a military system patterned on that of the German Empire, significantly because this exempted the military altogether from civilian control, thus continuity more than change (not that this worked well for Germany or Japan in the long term). Indonesia and Indochina, however, are conquered by Dutch, French, and British in various parts of each.

The 20th Century saw this imperial era collapse as bloodily as it begins, and the rise of Communism reflects a means for systems that originated with authoritarian politics to accomplish a Bismarckian goal of industrialization without sacrificing much of the older system in practice if at all possible. In this regard the Korean War for China is a moment of national rebirth as a military power, screws over Korea into a Forever War and Japan loses WWII but becomes one of the richest countries on the planet afterward. Vietnam, of course, defeated all comers in a military sense in the 20th Century, earning the most consistent win streak out of all of them.

The thing is that this is not a Western European pattern, it's something in its own right, it's got its own weaknesses and strengths, and European influence to a great extent as I see it has been greatly exaggerated. East Asia did not imitate Europe, it took from Europe the parts it wanted and neglected the rest. This is why from an AH POV, the difficulty of writing PODs for non-European societies is that it should be treated from the POV of what are in actual fact more separate histories with sui generis patterns than is generally the case. The countries in this part of the world all have their own separate histories, but as with Europe nationalism is still as much nonsense here in terms of history and anachronism as it is in a European context.

Thus to me the greatest weakness of how East Asia can be treated in AH discussions is to treat Western Europe as the norm and to judge East Asia/SE Asia on the basis of Europe. In reality such histories should be viewed in their own rights, as their own tales. Your thoughts?

Quoted this from a friend in facebook. I think it's an excellent thought meal for us all :

Ah, this is an excellent point that we should all remind ourselves of! Although only tangentially related, it reminds me of two things:

1) Map Projections - Atlantic / Pacific focus: interesting how an altered centric focus can so radically alter how people perceive how the world works, what's important and where the "fringe" is..

2) An anecdote from way back in my highschool days.. where in a history class I was exposed to some blatantly racist, but somewhat insightful study about how different cultures think. It showed graphical representations about how different cultures approached problem solving. Westerners thought in a straight line (of course). Asians thought in a spiral pattern, narrowing focus to get to the answer. I believe Russians were on there too and was some weird zigzag pattern..

Does anyone here have experience in an Alternate Earth projects? Things like "what if Earth was tilted in a different axis than in otl" or "what if the world map is upside down of OTL" things like that? Then simulating how humanity would spread and how would culture and civilization form in said worlds.

I seem to remember the above logic of "Europe-American" standard being the baseline for membership ideology in a Certain AH Forum. Why I was permanently banned from it.

And also why me and a few others have set up 'exile communities' elsewhere in facebook and other forums.

I generally agree with this friend of mine. However I've got to point up something that is, frankly, only indirectly-related here, but nevertheless worth noting : Western-centrism isn't exclusively western problem. Owing to the pressure to counter western advances since colonialism, there has been this tendency to "be west", roughly called, as the way to equal the west. That is, of course, natural, since emulating successes of the winning party is natural. While of course influences that were received were partial, and it definitely gave birth to some extent of reactionary attitude confronting them, it also gave birth to the line of thought that calls for more thorough incorporation of modern (western) influences as the way deemed necessary to progress immediately (and of course, there are the moderates and pragmatics between them). Ultimately, the result was as the post above pointed out : taking whatever that fits and more or less neglected the rest. But intellectual ferment is something that is continual, non-monolithic, and ultimately indeterminative. And the unfollowed calls for "becoming west" within non-western countries, especially east Asians, definitely occured, eventhough it seldom being described as such, especially nowadays when the geopolitics are in general shift, and thus so is the perspective history is being viewed from, but the remains are still around. The phenomenon of Christianity in China and Cultural Revolution under Mao are one of the biggest examples of this symtomp. Certainly however, this has been pretty much sidelined by the ultimate result on the ground since only the ideas that can work that stick there. But the point is, moderate emulation of western success isn't overall as conscious and as completely bared of "westernism" as the post above seems to be implying.

Sorry if I've come across as a bit OCD-ish with this post Not in the best shape to deliver this less wordily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willx

Ah, this is an excellent point that we should all remind ourselves of! Although only tangentially related, it reminds me of two things:

1) Map Projections - Atlantic / Pacific focus: interesting how an altered centric focus can so radically alter how people perceive how the world works, what's important and where the "fringe" is..

2) An anecdote from way back in my highschool days.. where in a history class I was exposed to some blatantly racist, but somewhat insightful study about how different cultures think. It showed graphical representations about how different cultures approached problem solving. Westerners thought in a straight line (of course). Asians thought in a spiral pattern, narrowing focus to get to the answer. I believe Russians were on there too and was some weird zigzag pattern..

1) Many cultures often put the south in higher respect then the north for various reasons, and among them who have produced maps, it was done with south-north projection. Muslim world, East Asia and India were the primary culprits of this, and had any of them remained a dominant world player to this day, south-north maps would've become common enough to encounter, if not the norm..

2) It is definitely a trap of cultural determinism. History is a much more coincidental affair. But you should already know that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Speaking of maps...

Does anyone here have experience in an Alternate Earth projects? Things like "what if Earth was tilted in a different axis than in otl" or "what if the world map is upside down of OTL" things like that? Then simulating how humanity would spread and how would culture and civilization form in said worlds.

Bumping this with an obscure topic related to my enthusiasm for obscure and extinct religions, like Manichaeism for example. I don't know much about it though in my defense not that much is known about it in the first place, but should there be anything I get it wrong below, (in hope that there will be anyone sufficiently informed running into this post) then please do tell.

Spoiler for Post-Muhammad Manichaeist revival:

One idea that has always been intriguing me is that a period, even if only briefly, where a major clash between Islam and a movement of revitalized Manichaeism takes place sometimes after the conquest of Persia. The Islamic eastward advances wasn't as smooth as it was the opposite direction, with rougher geography and all, and it was a gradual process that Dar al Islam could finally absorb Central Asia and Khurasan, boosted by the conversion of Turks that granted muslim world the highly mobile turkic cavalry into their military tradition. Nevertheless, it was a rather long way there and relatively coincidental. Turks only converted to Islam in the latest edge of first millenium, and it was a considerable period after the conquest of Persia. Manichaeism persisted post-Sassanid for quite a while east of Iraq, long enough to enable conversion of a (short-term) major Central Asian power post-Talas, and easter Persia wasn't exactly conducive under initial Islamic rule and was prone to heterodox messianic rebellions whenever the chance sprung up. So between the time of Umayyad ascendancy and Talas, frankly a slice of period which I know almost nothing about, Manichaeism could've gained better fortune vis a vis OTL ? The question of "how" is indeed the question. Subducation of Khurasan-Afghanistan region was not a very smooth process, and by the Battle of Talas Islam had just only began to assert itself in Sogdiana. Perhaps it could've gone slightly worse ? But would that be enough. Almost nothing is known about the internal state of Manichaeist church during this period, so we can't really figure how much organized eastern Manichaeians really were, but it doesn't seem to be really that well, so perhaps a political reformation would be necessary. Or perhaps we can simply have the muslims perform somewhat worse in the region to provide a breathing room and time long enough for Manichaeism to develop its relative influence in Khurasan-Sogdiana region, which will then be taken over by an opportunistic regional ruler when both the Caliphate and China start screwing themselves at home.

I'm not sure the maximum reach of this hypothetical neo-Manichaeist movement will be. Don't think they'll be able to hold onto Persia more then temporarily. Perhaps if they'd be lucky enough, they can perhaps lay a siege on Baghdad before being beaten back. All in all, I don't think this neo-Manichaeist revival will last more then a few generations as a force, but perhaps it will actually grant the religion a window to actually survive in the fringes later. What's more interesting would be about what kind of religious ferment it will cause to Greater Persia region and how it will affect Islam down the road, and whether it will make it indefinitely in North India, the last part which excites me the most, knowing how readily the north Indian Buddhists embraced Islam as the way to counter their losing ground against revitalized Hinduism IOTL, and many vital doctrinal similarities Manichaeism shared with Buddhism, by which the former was inspired anyway, but also shared the extent of politicism with that of Abrahamic religions.... And if it can pass in India, perhaps there's a real chance to survive as more then another Parsees after all...

Hm... I can't say I know much about the context of the rise of Islam, so I'm afraid I'd be hard-pressed to make any sensible commentary.

_________________________________

I'm going to venture out of my normal 20th-century comfort zone. In North Korea and fringe areas of Manchuria there was a kingdom called Kogoryo that I read a book about a couple days ago. It lasted from like 100 BC (or something) to 680 AD when the rising Tang Dynasty messed it up. Let's say for some reason or another the Tang instead decides (perhaps they have more important things to deal with further west) to be content with this kingdom existing and it survives at least until after the fall of the Tang dynasty, with amiable or at least peaceable relations between the two entities.

How would things turn out? Would Koguryo unite Korea? From the map the book provided, there were two more states in Korea, that Koguryo never managed to finish off. If they didn't have to deal with China (at least not directly), would these states have fallen? Would this kingdom have become the defining dynasty of Korea (Kogrea, anyone?)? Is it plausible for it to avoid being crushed by this or that Chinese/Mongol dynasty to be able to last until the 20th century?

I think that for the last bit, it may just be possible for the peninsula to become united under the Koguryo, and then after some series of half-hearted and failed Chinese invasions, it would become, to any normal Chinese dynasty, "one of those places we don't really care that much about". Perhaps in this sense, freed from major Chinese military interference it could become more like Japan, with a more continuous and stable civilization.

Both Goguryeo and Baekje fell because of internal problems hindering what would otherwis have been a robust military response to the Silla-Tang invasions. My guess is that if we change the political situation slightly, there was a high chance that Silla would have been pounded upon by Goguryeo, Baekje, and Yamato, thus removing the main threat and allowing the allied countries (at the time the northern Nomads and the three countries mentioned) would have been able to withstand the Tang invasions.

As for unification, I'm not quite sure. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Yamato were all linked by either having the ruling families be directly related (Goguryeo's founder was the stepfather of Baekje's father) or having extremely strong influence through immigration (Goguryeo/Baekje to Yamato). While unification might be difficult, a strong bond might be formed.

As for unification, I'm not quite sure. Goguryeo, Baekje, and Yamato were all linked by either having the ruling families be directly related (Goguryeo's founder was the stepfather of Baekje's father) or having extremely strong influence through immigration (Goguryeo/Baekje to Yamato). While unification might be difficult, a strong bond might be formed.

But one would think that having defeated the Tang-Silla invasion, that "strong bond" between Koguryo (or Goguryeo, damn, don't know which romanization is better) would eventually lead to Baekje being absorbed politically and culturally. Then Silla would be in the same situation as the ROK when it only controlled that little bit around Busan, and also end up assimilated at some point.

But if you say that internal problems caused the kingdom to collapse, I guess that makes things harder. It seems that almost all dynasties have this issue, they are fine until a crappy king (or series of crappy kings) comes along.

It's difficult to think that Baekje would have been absorbed, given that the population of the proto-Koreans in both countries were around the same level (three million) with Baekje having an additional one million or so in Yamato (never mind the pro-Baekje Yamato people). With Goguryeo's population being around five~six million at the time due to the various non-proto-Koreans (who contributed to the later northern nomad population), there was no real way Gogoryeo would have been in a definite position to absorb Baekje. Rather, I would see Goguryeo being the shield with Baekje providing the economic backup and Yamato providing the resources.

One of my favorite periods for divergence would be the period between 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars since frankly, unlike most people, I actually like seeing a more succesful France That is, aside from how many possible alternative discourses of new imperialism that can be explored while still maintaining a Europe similar enough to OTL's.

For now, I'll forward a Napoleonic what if : one of the most crucial weakness of Napoleonic Empire is that its leader wanted to become the next Alexander. Until a certain point, the other players of Europe would've been willing to give France Rhine border, had Napoleon decided to stop there. Changing Napoleon's personality will only create too much butterflies, but on the other hand, replacing him with someone else before it becomes too late could've saved France from submitting to actual defeat. The man always personally led his troops far in the frontlines, a habit that could've killed him anytime.
Supposed that he actually succumbed in one of his personal campaigns before the invasion to Russia happens, it doesn't seem that Continental System will outlast him for too long. However, it'd be likely that France could've retained better position in negotiating table under a more negotiable leadership. Let's say that France would retain Rhine Border and Italy and Netherlands as satelites. Let's broadly speculate about how will Europe and colonialism broadly develop from then on.

Some points :
> With Netherlands still under French thumb, Indonesia will remain British
> Germany has been deprived from Rhineland and its resources and economy, while in Italy, Piedmont remains French.
> Algeria has been saved from spiralling down into effective anarchy from sudden loss of trading revenues with France due to collapse of Napoleonic regime. Altogether, this should prevent the later souring of relationship between two countries and ultimately French conquest of Algeria.

Specifically, let's discuss about the futures of Germany, Africa and South East Asia departing from this rough divergence. Thoughts ?

My personal choice is Napoleon being incapacitated during the Battle of Austerlitz, somehow leading to a more lenient peace Treaty of Pressburg (due to Talleyrand). That would most likely have kept Austria from joining the Fifth Coalition and butterfly a few things to prevent the Fourth from starting in the first place.